tv BOS Full Board of Supervisors 22316 SFGTV February 23, 2016 6:00pm-9:01pm PST
affordable housing here in san francisco. if you're a household of four making under $120,000 a year to qualify for affordable housing here in san francisco. yet, we are not meeting that need. we need to build 28,870 new housing units between 2015 and 2022 to keep up with the jobs were created here in the region which is a good thing. but 57% of these units need to be affordable to the majority of san franciscans for this growth in the bowman to work. need to build 60,000 units over the next seven years to make you for the housing need of working-class and middle-class san franciscans. these are not just the poorest in our community. it is our nurses. it's our teachers. it's entry-level office workers and engineers and small business owners. in 2014, the voters passed proposition k saying that we want to see that 33% of all new housing built in san
francisco or protective housing through acquisition offer low and moderate income households. no we build an additional percentage for middle income house look at the voters are demanding an action plan, not just a goal and doubling the current affordable housing is part of the plan. 25% inclusionary housing ordinance is doable. it again instead of pain are low income and middle income housing needs against each other this measure addresses both needs adding a second here to the inclusionary housing requirements in the form of the 10% for middle income households. this moderates inclusionary promise just like construction costs developer fees interest rates and any other cost to build here in san francisco gets factored into the cost of land. over time, the market and financing will adjust to these new requirements. as we confer
value to the land is still in san francisco we wanted developers to share this wealth and value back to the community by building as much affordable and middle income housing as possible. over the last 10 years, we lost 4528 units of housing to no-fault evictions. san francisco continue to see the highest rental prices in the nation. inclusionary housing is one of the best tools we have to build housing for moderate and middle income san franciscans. there no public subsidies available as the at these income levels. this means, get them as i said households making up to 1% of average median income, give an example teacher making $70,000 a year or postal worker and restaurant worker with a child making $90,000 a year or for for some home ownership opportunities for households making up to $120,000 a year.
housing is the solution to many of the issues that we're seeing here in san francisco. one that we're hearing a lot about his homelessness increasing visibility of our homeless community. but what often times people don't realize is that the growing, the fastest-growing demographic or homelessness today the new face of homelessness in cities like san francisco my new york and la is working families. it is often single moms with children that are fastest-growing demographic anonymous committee . in fact, one third of our homeless account our children between the ages of 5-7. for some reasons the production of the for the housing sink readily and our in san francisco we must do it at multiple income box. this only one tool. we've seen the polls. the rising people that are supporting more affordable housing art at unprecedented levels because they realize it
is not just those that least fortunate pushed out. everyone is getting pushed out and squeezed out of the city today. i want to recognize a number of folks that helped put this ordinance together and are supporting this today. i want to thank and recognize the council of community housing organization, san francisco and the displacement coalition, senior disability action network, community tenants association, eviction defense collaborative, chinese progressive association, veterans equity ctr., chinatown committee development center, a formal housing allies, sf rising, asked me local three 3299 united educators of san francisco. and uh w. tenants together as well as a long list
of other organizations that i'm sure will be speaking here today. i also want to recognize my co-authored supervisor peskin and who sponsor supervisor avalos and campos for your strong support it was my introductory comments for the legislation here before say >> thank you. supervisor cohen >> thank you, thank you, thank you. it isn't just my know you've come for show and hearing for those of you that maybe participating in the rules committee, we are really interesting conversation. i want to possibly get on out maybe leader the visit that conversation in the rules committee because was very profound. particularly the comments by my esteemed colleague supervisor peskin. i would echo similar marks he said . that it is my hope, local
break him in these marks it is our hope that we have really honest and transparent conversation about this particular measure. i'm in agreement with supervisor peskin when he says that he's looking for something that, a dynamic lot. we were taught about a dynamic law he mean a lot that will expand and contract with the market. i also am hopeful that possibly at the end of this hearing will be will to remove items from the ballot. hope to hear from my colleagues and supervisors become an peskin particularly what will it take? it was admitted serbian committee that he would be ideal to pull the mayor's version, to pull the peskin-kim version and pull it off of the ballot so we can figure out collectively, as a
board of supervisors, what exactly is the sweet spot and also most importantly, to begin to have a conversation and do with the grandfathering issue. i think that is a real pointed issue. i think it's also important we get this out of the charter from 2012. i agree, we need affordable housing. i am listening in the listening session with the planning department last night in the debut community, about the housing density bonus, and there are very real people experiencing the challenges that, frankly, i'm a tenant. i feel the challenges. avalos and i have had many conversations about what when life is like. it's really tough in the city. so, two things i have that i want to talk about. first, i have a set of amendment we could discuss that it will introduce and i will circulate, but i think more importantly, i would love to direct my comments to the sponsor of the
legislation to pull the measure . the mayor will pull his measure and then we can get on with the get on and talk about other important issues that we need to deal with here in the city and county of san francisco. amendment. i would like to read them to you. first i have to do within a nasty divorce of either source even consider reports the controller analyzing the impacts of the interim inclusionary affordable housing obligation set in subsection but a golf to ensure requirements are appropriately
to maximize housing affordability in san francisco. the analysis shall be performed by december 31, 2016. the report should be accompanied by specific recommendations from the controller for legislative armaments to san francisco inclusionary or for the housing obligation to maximize housing affordability. second, the controller's office show because analysis every 36 months , or as often as the controller deems necessary. future reports shall be accompanied by specific recommendations from the controller for legislative and moments to san francisco inclusionary or affordable housing obligation to maximize housing affordability. next section is future legislation. the board of supervisors shall pass legislation necessary to perform inclusionary affordable housing obligation to the findings of the report detailed in subsection h and l after the soon as practicable but no later than march 31 4017 and within three months of future reports pursuant to subsection h
h2. >> supervisor cohen, just for clarity are we talking about the charter amendment >> yes. you would make amendments to the charter amendment specifically? >> yes that is correct. that's what i'm talking about that is specifically i think for item number 35 >> 35. >> so that's to the amendment. i also want to recognize that supervisor yee introduce a resolution earlier today that calls out three things to conduct a feasibility study, as the study happen every three years and also give grandfathering a specific definition that i'm asking is same thing. why do it in a nonbinding resolution when we can actually put in form of a amendment and vote on and codified. so there's a lot of things at play, asking for-i realize that for to the discussion from my colleagues and i'm sure i'll be back on
the microphone a little bit later. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor peskin >> thank you. first of all, let me thank sponsor and the many cosponsors for this and let me put this in a little bit of historical perspective. i just spent the last year running for election and everybody in the northeast corner of san francisco, and i suspect everybody in san francisco, realizes that collectively this government missed the boat. in 2012, as the market was beginning to go through the roof, which of the government of san francisco do? the lower the percentage of required occlusion re: the affordable housing from 15-to 12% and maybe unconscionable choice to put it in the city's charter. the constitution. his
is not clear sub-object level detail of this kind of fine-grained policy belongs. i believe there is now widespread agreement in this chamber, in the executive branch, that when you stick something in the charter it becomes ossified. he becomes static. when the heart gets changed, when the price of construction goes up among the per square foot sale price goes up to two north of $2000 a square foot with her inclusionary percentage should have been going up, this body in the executive branch were hamstrung. nobody at the board of supervisors, nobody in the executive branch brought this up in 2013 coming in 2014, i salute the government for its general obligation bond for
housing in 2015. but, everybody in this town knows that percentage should have been going up. not in november of 2016. it's a crisis. in june of 2016. i am delighted that somebody, this body, is taking action. as a matter of public policy, this should come out of the charter. this should come out of the charter. i appreciate when you send transportation chairman cohen's initial words in this conversation, which is this doesn't belong in the charter. i agree. we should all agree. that's not hamstrung ourselves further by putting-taking it out of the charter only to put it back into the charter. this body, and future incarnations of this body should raise and potentially lower the percentage
of inclusionary housing. i have said to the development community, i had said to the advocates, to the people want to see more affordable housing built, i would love to come up with a formula that self adjusts his could take somebody a lot smarter than me to figure it out because the price of housing per square foot goes up. sale price goes up. there's differences in different neighborhoods. there's differences between for-sale stock and rental stock. does the issue of entitlement time and the difference with somebody i should start applying for project notably gets permits and begins construction. there's changes in the financing world, so all that makes us very different. i don't have this conversation every two years where every three years. i'm assuming he drank some level of predictability and stability. we do not in any way want to
reduce new housing starts. but, i know the mayor knows, you all know that for the last four years we have left hundreds, if not thousands, of affordable units on the table. that is a fact. when i hear the protest from certain developers, they're not making a counter proposal. they are not saying that 15 and 10 would work if it were 15 and five, or if it were 18 and three. they are saying the sky is going to fall. let me tell you, some of those exact same developers made windfall profits between 2012 and 2016. now it's time to give back. and look at the economic analyst reports, good the economic analyst report actually says this legislation would build less luxury super
expensive 59 dollar condos that none of us can afford that san francisco does not need, that would build more low income and middle income working-class housing that this town is desperate for, that our teachers need to live in. there are nurses need to live in. better city employees need to live in. i'm happy to look at the feasibility reports, but i don't think this body should lock itself into a feasibility reports. i don't think that our controller am a ben rosenfield, from everybody in this government has great respect, should be beefed the sees of
these ability bizarre. i think what we should do all to me what we done it many figured we should look at different datasets. we should look at a feasibility report. we should potentially look at multiple feasibility reports and evaluations we should independently in this body by ordinance do our jobs that we were discharged to do under our charter. we should come out of the charter. i will strongly will say firstly oppose any amendment to the charter amendment because the charter amendment, in reality, does one thing and one thing only. it takes this 2012 error mistake out of the charter. it allows this board to change that 15 and 10, that 15 and 10 does not appear in the charter. it does not appear in the code. it's an interim ordinance until we act. supervisor kim and myself met with the mayor yesterday morning. we are ready to meet with the mayor as often as necessary between now and the first day of march, a week from today, hopefully with the
following results. the two initiative ordinance, one of which was placed on the ballot by the mayor through his representative who sitting here behind me on the 19th day of january would come off. the measure that supervisor kim emma avalos, campos and myself put on after the mayor put the measure on on the 19th of gnu ray would come off. we would come up with a set of bullet points that would become the ordinance that this body would enact prior to the june 7 election. i want us all to be very clear with the electorate. as to what that ordinance would be. i want the electorate to know precisely what they are voting on. what ordinance will go into place. what is being grandfathered. how long does
the grandfather to use it or lose it, as happened in proposition c. that is the proposed. there are some details to work out. if it all goes back, all three of the measures will end up on the ballot. i've been at that rodeo a lot of times. i know how to win that will be. i'm not putting my chest out, but hopefully we will all do our job in these chambers. i will vociferously oppose any amendment to the charter amendment for the charter amendment is underpinned on getting this 2012 the stake out of the ballot. that concludes my comments at this point. >> thank you. supervisor wiener >> >> thank you. i'm about to sit down with him asking questions of the city attorney?
good. i promise supervisor peskin better withstand when i speak. i'm glad were having this dialogue today about when the most important issues facing our city in terms of housing affordability and of course housing affordability, affordable housing is a critical part of housing affordability but housing affordability is much broader than affordable housing. it has to do with our overall housing policy am glad among other items we are are discussing we are discussing what i think is a sheer desire to increase inclusionary percentage could i support supervisor cohen's proposed amendments. i don't see any harm whatsoever in requiring a periodic feasibility analysis in terms of making sure we strike the right balance good so, i will support that. i don't know if there has been a second. if not
i will second it. but i do have a few questions of the city attorney. i have read the charter amendment to our make sure i'm interpreting it correctly because i have a few comments acted. the first is, the 25%, the weights calculated, as i read it, it is the below market rate units divided by the total number of units. so, if it's a 100 units product it would require 25 of the units be below market rate? >> deputy city editor. that's right the charter members 25% of all units shall be affordable >> i know this charter amendment is praised as an interim control that disappears with the board adopts follow.
can the board even change that afterwards in terms of how it is calculated? >> the interim peace, the board can replace with any new inclusionary requirements adopted by ordinance. >> so not just the number. that's how it's cultivated. okay. in terms of how you get to the 25%, does this charter amendment require that the amount, whatever the percentages, say 25%, or 333% or if they build it elsewhere, is that all funded by the developer? or does that include potentially public money? >> in other words, someone is devoted to building 100 unit
project that has 725 below market rate units in it, can that be-can that requirement be met by the developer paying for half of that the city paying for the other half to mark? i don't be developing him asking if that's the case. >> i think i'm a familiar enough with the way it works under the current inclusionary ordinance able to answer that on-the-fly. if the developers obligation to provide the affordable housing to pay the fee. it sounds like what you are asking is if the developer has some outside source, whether the city or otherwise, >> taxpayers >> under the charter amendment that developer has the obligation. i guess that's the answer >> in terms of the area median income from the way i read it, the range is living on a
variety of things, somewhere between 50% of area median income and 120% of area median income. that's a 25%, right? 55-120? >> yes. with a split in the middle >> will income is defined by either 50% or 80% and middle, is either 1% or 120%? >> yes. >> so i asked these questions because we had a few projects recently, one that this board approved last year though 5m project and the 160. project that were announced as 40% affordable projects, and they don't necessarily comply with some of the definitions in this charter amendment. the authors of the charter amendments have defined 25% affordable in a certain specific way. it's if
you have percent-120% of ami. it's cuckolded by taking a number of affordable use this to buy by the total number of units in a does not appear to allow for any kind of outside source such as a public subsidy to satisfy the developers requirement we know from a recent report there's real questions for 5m in terms of how was calculated at 5m actually exempted from this charter amendment question is why why would you exempt the 40% project from a 25% requirement because we know the way that 5m was calculated in terms the affordability, there were a number of issues in terms of the denominator was changed and the total number of units to the number market rate units could we know that other fees from commercial uses were shifted in to backfill. in
addition to the 5m affordability goes up to 150% of ami seven maximum of 120% of ami has contained in this charter amendment. there's also the 160. project about which was announced a 4% affordable project but the developers only putting 20% affordable and the other toward percent is coming to a public subsidy. so, i questions about we have here an announcement that were doing a charter amendment to say 25% affordable these really strict standards among which may be completely and oddly appropriate about how you calculate the 25% stipulated in the 25% is on the developer not on the city to pay for half of it not using other fees not changing the way you calculate its. having a strict set of ami where we are projects that have come or are coming to this board they really don't even
need that requirements. so come i think it's important this question be asked because we should have one standard i think applies to all. so those are my initial comments. i look forward to the public comment today and the discussion of supervisor evans amendment >> thank you. supervisor tang >> i just want to again as supervisor cohen mention bring up a couple points we discussed that rules committee but i first want to say to the authors actually there's a lot i agree with. i grew the fact that should not be in the charter. i agree we do not need those more affordable housing. i like that there is more of an effort to make room or try to require more effort devoted to support middle income household. there's a lot i actually agree with, put that out there in the first place. there is a point made in rules committee tomorrow point that was brought up which is that a lot of the projects that have been highly
touted in the news headlines, 40% being the new 30, the new 20, whatever it was. that many of those projects might think supervisors the winner was trying to get at this as well, they can require quite a bit of public subsidy or some other way to achieve that. so, i don't know if i guess we do have staff from oewd that reiterate that point, because that is something that is concerning to me. i know that, yes, when we have first insecure first inclusionary housing law and san francisco was certainly with heartache but it has been achieved for the most part, but now with this 25% again, that analysis i've asked repeatedly in committee. i don't think i got up to answer on this as to how it is that we came up with this 25% number, whether it's truly feasible. so, maybe if oewd
staff can speak to that? >> i am not sure of the question >> please identify yourself with it can richard oewd. by answer the wrong question stop me. are you asking for a rundown of how the higher affordability projects the board has seen recently have those levels? >> that i think addresses some of the what supervisor wiener was getting at and you want to swing that that's fine. i think one of my questions was how did we arrive at the 25%, whether that's truly feasible because looking back at some of the projects that have gone through the city with a higher percentage, it wasn't without some type of again other assistance they were able to be achieved in that way. >> thank you for the clarification. i would defer the question of how the 25% was arrived at to the sponsors of
the charter amendment. that's not for me to talk to. was not our charter amendment. i would say, in general, the short presentation of to make later which can go into more detail, we don't know of any project currently that gets 25% without substantial public subsidy in the project. 5m was made. i like to remind the board that added development by adding density or height is a public subsidy of sort of the 5m project got several hundred feet of added high. 160. was brought up. that's asking for hundred feet of added height is getting a land contribution worth $19 million. the giants project will have an infrastructure finance district is part of it. the board just heard about one of those as well as using the job linkage fee another example public subsidy. the s'more i could go into. so, our concern has been large projects with public
subsidy a lot of of zoning can and do make a 25%. i would just remind everyone that i don't think the board will see a project coming out of our office, the big development agreement projects, i don't think we will see below 25% of our concern is the medium-sized projects in the neighborhood. those were our concerns like. i can answer other 25 was arrived at. was not our legislation. >> i'm going to ask the sponsors again as they did in rules committee, but the analysis the one find a 25%. if you could shed light on that? >> before move on with questions, supervisor kim, would you like to allow the department to provide a presentation before we continue with the discussion world would you like to continue with the discussion to mike >> i like to continue with the discussion. would you like to answer two provides that things question? >> the numbers put ford at 25%, again, his interim control
. as the bird works and figures out with the final inclusionary number is. the primary purpose of the charter amendment is to take out of supervisor peskin said something completely inappropriate for the charter to setting a ceiling for the helpers can build terms of a formal housing on-site. i should also mission a key part of the interim control it's also raising off-site obligations. bring this up only because supervisor wiener seems to be confused by how weak i could afford housing for development when it's off-site and on-site. when you do 33% affordable housing off-site, it's 33% of the market rate units that you build. when you build 12 or 15% for the housing on-site is 12 or 15% of the total units that are built on site. hence, the difference between the giants and the 5m bail. that's been our inclusionary housing policy for over a decade. have never heard any supervisor challenge 15 or 20% ever before. so, i would like to do for that question to
can bridge the mayor's office of housing so there's the question of whether we build 40% for the house and it did we achieve 40% affordability in the 5m deal? >> supervisor tang has your question and answered? >> no. even though i doesn't interim control lights want to know why and how we got to 25%. again i know it's interim >> the interim control rings but over obligations back to the 50% developers have demonstrated they been able to do since we increase the inclusionary obligation from 10 -to 15% but this is 50% after he got percent of average median income below. on top of that, we have a 10% acquirement asking developers to also build affordable housing for middle income housing which requires less subsidies than for those of lower income. >> thank you. >> wait. i'm sorry.
specifically, those that go to 120% am i, correct? >> yes >> thank you. did you want to add to slider tends question? were still the positive answering that with the number of names on the roster that still need to talk to dick i do and i want to say voltage to the issue that supervisor wiener brought up both of 25m, you made it sound or made to sound like 5m was specifically grandfathered. that's not the case. >> should pfizer peskin-can we- >> i'm getting to it. this is important. the charter amendment that anything that had been entitled as of january 12 >> i'm getting to it. this is important. the charter amendment that anything that had been entitled as of january 12, 2016, i want to be clear with that. here's what's interesting to me. this charter amendment was introduced on december 15. this conversation
has not happened in this government for four years. when we have the hearing that the rules committee, we asked staff to mr. bridget said it would take two months to prepare a fiscal feasibility analysis. it's the middle of february. did he ministration go-getter fiscal feasibility analysis? no. they got the slides with many developers say hope make our point that there's enough residual land value that still works at lease on the sales side. no one is actually-is anybody here-is my response to supervisor speaking. supervisor tang, do you have to the president, something north of 12 they would like to propose? were trying to move this all for you were trying to take it out of the charter. the rocket scientists in the feasibility report people show us that it should be 23%, like we did on the visitor by unanimous vote
on this board well by golly this should pfizer is ready to do 23%. >> thank you supervisor peskin. supervisor speaking, and your comments? okay. supervisor cohen >> designs like we have a lot of points of intersection and it goes back to what does it take to pull it off the charter. four years ago we cannot do with it but here we are today in the chamber talk about it. he's got a city as a committee of a whole ready to talk and deal with. i don't have a very fruitful ski pointing a finger in the mayor's eye. yes, he did not do. are we are to talk about it so pull out the item, pull out the charter amendment, put the item of a charter was put in in 2012. we'd be having a discussion what is going to take what that's going to look at. he pulled his out off about. so it
sounds like, when easier for the mayor's office. supervisor kim says were point hard off about men were done and don't get all these working man and woman can continue their life. >> that presumes you do not amend the charter >> i'm happy to bulldoze amendment back. >> sounds like raven a lively debate here. is that it supervisor cohen? >> for now >> supervisor kim >> how to appreciate the dialogue but also i want to emphasize, again much of the points brought up to date on being negotiated for spring ordinance there will hopefully be passed by the board of supervisors before the charter amendment passed by the city and county of san francisco. on june 7 and the primary that's
coming up. the issue of grandfather, number of years we study a cycle for we change the policy, all of these things are currently being sorted out could not ready for amendment today. just want to note the board, any amendment made to the charter today were part of this board to sit two more times before march 4 with only one more board meeting today. so any amendment deduced to the charter and past but kill a ballot measure that would allow san franciscans to vote to take out 80 feeling that constrains her ability to build as much as possible in the june ballot as soon as we can. so, because this is already come up but do want to redirect my question to director ken rich of the mayor's office of housing but whether we achieved 40% affordability affordable new income in the 5m project? >> difference to mike collects him with oewd. 5m hit 40% only
underlined among only with a massive subsidy and a lot of public site because it's not. what percent? >> it hit 40% only with a massive subsidy >> so i want to talk about the -is it true when we hit the highest level of affordability we've ever seen in a development project it doesn't involve partnership with the secure it involves being creative zoning and height and density and of course with often plowing back these back into a project where the cities putting skin in the game with a limited amount of land we have here in san francisco. what we are talking about with its 40% or 35% or 30% is inclusionary requirements at 25%. and that
is far different from projects that make it 35% or 40% affordability of the final single note on all these projects we are seeing at 162 fulsome, at 5m, the giants, his developers had said they could never build more than 15%. regardless of how much the subsidies are put in, we are seeing unprecedented levels of affordable housing being built when we are able to put our heads together creatively and also negotiate vigorously on behalf of our residents. but i think it should be differentiated from what we are putting forth your today would say far lower inclusionary amount of 25% that we believe the developers can hit in a number of our affordable housing developments. i'm sorry. in a number of our market rate development projects. >> is that it supervisor canady? okay. supervisor wiener egypt as initial manner
>> i believe we can get this on the june ballot. is that should prevent us from making amendment if an amendment is appropriate i know there might be different views and that >> excuse me so we have until this body or next friday to have a special meeting and or to make amendment to the charter amendment >> the deadline person leading the charter amendments to the part of elections is next friday, march 4 at 5 pm. if you amend the charter amendment today, if there were no -essentially of two options. one is under the corporate board ruled the charter amendment must be continued to a special meeting we have another committee of the whole and take public comment again and continued again to another meeting at least six days a way. given the timing of noticing, that would require a special meeting this coming saturday by a special meeting the following
friday could the board rules have a provision that allow the board to modify time for appearance of a charter amendment, and if next week the board were to adopt a motion modifying the time somehow, potentially you could forgo the saturday meeting and have just a special meeting on friday, march 4. the bottom line is, you can work it out >> we can do it but were cutting it close. thank you for clarity supervisor wiener >> thank you for the clarification. back to the 25%-40%, as is. i appreciate supervisor tang's russian, but i also appreciate ken rich is incredibly straightforward comments. as always. so, when you look at some of the 40% projects we've seen him really focusing on 5m and also 160
fulsome which is been announced, what we are looking at today with a 25%, it's a blanket wool for anything 25 units or higher. if you have a 40, 50, 60, 80 unit project that's an infill project in a neighborhood that is not getting any kind of public subsidy amount they have to do 25%. now, the reason why 5m 160 fulsome matter, what's relevant is we know that when supervisor kim made a very grand announcement that 5m was going to 40% and those who have static, has said 40 is the new 30 which was a sensation for a while, and then we got another announcement from supervisor kim that she had with i am negotiated for 5m developer to
do for you percent in the supervisor kim negotiate for the 160 fulsome to do 40%. that's good 40 is the new 30, except that's different than what we have here. 5m was not a situation where developer was providing 40%. instead, it was a massive public subsidy. not just the up zoning. we know that in 5m that 40% includes fees from the commercial project that they were already required to pay. the jobs housing linkage fee that the city was already entitled to but instead of those fees going to what they would normally go to the redirected into the photo housing in order to increase 40%. we also know that, instead of going up to 120% of syrian meeting income which is what we normally do in our affordable housing program and with this charter amendment caps as highest, 5m but up to
150% of ami in an effort to increase the percentage even more. so, what we have is a project that got us to 40% so we could claim a new hazard of 40 is the new 30 and that is great, but it's not accurate to say that 5m was able to do 40%. so why can't others do 25%?. article in san francisco magazine, breaking it down it was really under 25% was 21%. that's what 5m was. in terms of 160 fulsome: 160 fulsome, again asked that 40 is the new 30, 160 fulsome the developer put in 20% affordable or that's what's being proposed. the city, taxpayers of san francisco are paying for the
other 20%. so, don't get me wrong. 5m is a great project. in time we get up to 40% of affordable that's terrific. but let's not mislead people into thinking that we extracted 40% from these developers. we did not. he received a massive taxpayer subsidy in order to get the 2021% from the developer up to 40% and that is the only reason it got up to 40% neither project would even qualify for 25% under how it's defined in this charter amendment which limited to 100% 120% of ami without calculated acquires a lead developer, not the taxpayer pay for. so, i think looking at 5m and 160 fulsome, it is really relevant in terms of assessing this charter amendment here. if 5m in one city. under 20% these large objects can only get about 20% 25% the large publics
of the city, and are we get enough inviting public subsidies was 40, 50, 100 unit projects? is that the intent within a have to provide a public subsidy to get them up to 25%? i think a very legitimate question. but it's important question and it ties directly into the critical importance of inserting a feasibility requirement into this charter amendment. >> thank you. campos >> i'm not going to belabor the point. i think a lot of comments have been made. i would i would say is this. to be honest, i'm not interested in talking about what individual supervisors did or did not do some of these projects. i understand that people have their own reasons for wanting to bring attention to that. i think, to me, the
question, and i say this as the supervisor for district 9, which includes the mission, which is from 04 displacement that is happening out there is what is the right level of affordable housing that should be required. i mean, that's the question here. quite frankly, what a supervisor did work did not do on a specific project people may think that's not the focus in my view of what were talking about. what we are talking about is what should the city and county of san francisco requires developer in terms of what they build a market rate housing, with the level of affordability should be? i do believe that the vast majority of san franciscans would be surprised to see that the current requirement is 12%.
as someone who actually voted for that and made the mistake of voting for that is supervisor peskin noted earlier, i feel that we have a responsibility to right that wrong, and to do so in two ways. one, to write the fact that you made the mistake of putting it in the charter and charter is the city's constitution. i do know what we were thinking when we did that. and i take responsibility for someone who voted for that. second, i think that we also have responsibility to make sure that we expect the right level of affordability sufficient level of affordability of these developers. i'm sorry. i think if you ask most san franciscans is requiring that 25% of the units in a project is building luxury housing that 25% be
affordable is that too much? of the most sentences comes with a it's too much. in fact, i think which are then hear from some san franciscans and sorely from some people in my district is that 25% affordable is not enough. that's what you are going to hear. so, this idea that somehow we are taking a very radical step by requiring that 25% of the units built before, to me this is the point and shows the disconnect between this board and what's happening in san francisco today. there are people, by the way, moved out right now of homes homeless and cameras the division should. they're being pushed out with out even a place to go. that being pushed out without giving every person there a place to go. that is happening right now. we are
actually shock there were talking about acquires that it made a great deal of money 25% affordability. that's the level of disconnect in this room was happening out there. but, i know we have political points to score and that is fine, but let's actually focus on the question and the question is, is it reasonable for us to expect a 25% of the units built in san francisco be affordable? i think that's reasonable at a minimum is reasonable. >> thank you. supervisor yee >> let me make my statements as simple as possible. one, this charter amendment it seems there's a disagreement one of
the things were trying to do in this charter members is to get rid of that number, the 12%. so that's a given. minor sin is we have not done a feasibility study and would take two months and has not been done. that's why my resolution earlier i was saying that let's get it done. it is true. when you go out in the community, the project i've been paying a lot of attention to is the one district 7 which is the balboa reservoir. hundreds of people have come to that meeting and have gone to a dozen of them. these are recommending silver having out there and i'm telling you, the least talked about 12% of the least talked about 25%. the vast majority of people talking about 50-1 & affordable housing . that's the reality of how
people feel right now. now, it seems like much of the discussion is arguing with the right number is right now when i guess maybe a lot of the people here have done their own feasibility study already. i haven't. i said let's get the notes we can figure out the numbers. the way i'm reading the charter is that the 25% is not a fixed number. i'm not even worried about it. i'm worried about is as we move forward, before june, we need to get to the feasibility study, and get the numbers of people understand what we are talking about. i won't be supporting the amendment and that's my comments >> thank you. supervisor kim >> i just want to make some final comments as long as were talking about what supervisors may or may not be doing to build enough for the housing in
the city am very proud to represent a district cooling 56% of all of san francisco's formal housing pipeline and that involves kagoshima developers but also putting city resources in way to build extraordinary amount. ever been talked about were not. let's talk about how 2011 we had a surplus piece of property at 341 corvette was slated tentatively mayor's office of housing to build housing for poor families formerly was there was but instead this board voted 6-5 foot moratorium on a parcel and prevent the production of any housing affordable or not, by zoning that parcel p. those introduced by supervisor of that district. so, inverness or talk about accusing one another not building enough before the housing, they certainly bring up a case where we had surplus property to build housing for the formerly homeless. this board voted six-but to bone it donate a parcel to prove his prevent a formal housing in a
district that's not building on a formal housing here in the city. >> thank you. supervisor avalos >> i want to get onto public comments. a lot of people are here want to speak about overdoing here today. before public comment starts i do want to talk about the-my opposition to this amendment. when looking at this charter taking language, setting inclusionary of our city charter and look at this amendment and basically it's providing by formula with the board shall set the inclusionary rate once the controller's office sits there and also. have a great deal perspective controller's office. i believe they provide really great models for how we should be looking at economic impact and number of issues, number of policies i can think of to
portland where it's not like the controller's office reports that authored the increase to the real estate transfer tax in 20 dammit the controller's office report said that it would actually diminish jobs in san francisco by 100/10 years. i think that's been shown completely wrong. when i had worked on the local hiring legislation said that the detriment pulled impact in san francisco. that was in the case either. but we have a report that tells us what the rates should be for inclusionary and then i'm looking at the language in the last paragraph it says the board of supervisors shall pass registration necessary to conform inclusionary or 41 housing obligations to the findings of the report. that means we have no discussion whatsoever but what we set the inclusionary fee act would you up it by ordinance etc. the
controller support houses. that to me is practically the same thing as having this in the charter and i think would be the worst thing that we can do and taking us step backward. >> thank you. supervisor wiener >> just to be clear i appreciate supervisor speak kim's remark but i'm not critical over the 5m project used. the 5m project is a good project. i was proud to support it and i support it today. my comment is not about the quality of that excellent project. it's about making sure they're being very straightforward about what it actually produced in not using as an example for other projects that are being calculated in a completely different way. and then in terms of the corporate slope, i
absolutely stand by my support for not so enough neighbor parks development which is what was being proposed there. we saved neighborhood park space and i would do that seven days a week. >> thank you. supervisor avalos >> i do want to say i can want to get onto public comment but it's important for me to from the controller's office on proposed amendment. if i had discussed it correctly, by the controllers office during the report and telling the board what the rate of inclusionary should be, the basically locking what were doing? >> ben rosenfield controller. per my perspective on amendment has been stressed on appreciative and beach our office would be happy to participate in whatever form the board ultimately decides related to the feasibility review, a couple thoughts. number one, i would suggest
such a review shouldn't simply be performed by the controller's office showed involve other agencies in the city including the planning departments. this parts of this are within our purview but there are other experts in the city should probably consult on it. secondly, the report shows only be advisory to the mayor and board. from our perspective. it shouldn't trigger requirement that you adopt whatever we recommend. >> thank you. that was my plan were lucky with report languages has other than being advisory and excluding all kinds of other information. the controller's office works on modeling and modeling is based on what numbers you can plug in but this of other factors that influence the modeling that we know affect our economy. so, i think would be really-the wrong way to go to actually have a formula like approach how we
set inclusionary based on the controllers report and list of economic analysis do for everyone looks that comes before says economic impact. the report is only being done anyway because the advisory advice we need in order to set rates. so just thought put that in before public comment >> just for clarity, we still have staff reports and comments from other members of this board. supervisor cohen >> i want to speak use supervisor avalos point the part of the amendment you're uncomfortable with we can substitute shall consider and act on. so not locking ourselves into anything. >> >> see no other names on the roster,-supervisor peskin >> in that case there is no underlying reason of any kind for it to be in the chart. the only reason to put it in the
charter is to mandate and hamstring the legislative branch of government. but when you turn the shall, to a mate, there's no reason at all. we can do by ordinance a resolution bite policy declaration. that is my fundamental point. >> thank you. >> thank you. now, with that, just for clarity to all members of the board, the members of the planning departments, the mayor's office to answer questions and i like to acknowledge ken which was here from the office of economic and workforce moment to provide a presentation you have a guess? >> thank you. in the interest of time the technical part of our presentation we are going to pass on the must is an extreme desire could i think we'll were presented in the committee is how feasible is study would work and wiped a good thing. i think that all of you understand our point on that. i like to spend a minute making one point think it's
important for us. the 25% in the charter's been referred to as interim, unless i'm mistaken, not really interim like interim legislations board symptoms years. the 25% is there until changed and there's no guarantee were forcing function it should never be changed. so, and then moving on from that, we understand that we are in a situation where 12% is currently in the charter nor to remove that number which we already should be removed, have to substitute it with another number. would not really be very easy to just take it out that everything go back to 12. there needs to be another number. that under number has been posed at 25. so when the situation where we have 25 that could theoretically go forever and because of that we feel strongly that you need obligation to the feasibility study of equal stature. the charter of the city is the highest governing document of the city. it seems to us not inappropriate to put a sort of
provision in the charter commode which says we need to afford housing and inclusionary housing, do a feasibility study. did you want me to stop? >> no. i want to say based on what you're saying i've not heard one member of this board say they don't want to see us do a feasibility study. period. that's clearly on the table. that's clearly something we can do. that's close something we don't have to go to the ballot to be. we can legislate right here at the board chamber. so continue your comments >> no, thank you. the comments were making is that given that we do have to put a number in the charter, that number probably or may change in the future but we don't know it will and so we feel like there needs to be equal stature with a study that says take a look and see that number works. i do want to point out on on the 25 number, the larger projects
particularly, the ones my office handles we have 15,000 units were sore processing. the see them over the next few years was all development of humans we have lots of tools. we will make 25. all those projects will be at 25 or higher. we were to double the number today that would not affect anything that would not give us one more unit of affordable husband had our concern remains in the reason we keep elevating the idea of a feasibility study, were not going to get by increasing the amount from 12 -25 were not to get that many more units from the bigger mega projects by 5m that are already there. so we start to lose medium and small projects will be at a net loss. were trying to prevent a net loss and therefore, because we have to put something in the charter we don't disagree with putting 25 injured just want something of equal stature that says willie study that immediately and have that in the charter that something wrong in our opinion >> we carry. we further time
and time again. >> thespian my presentation. >> supervisor campos >> a quick question on the feasibility study, mr. rich. can we do a feasibility study on the 12% on whether not that number was too low to mark >> i was not part of that process. i do not know if we give visibility study on a number. feasibility study, supervisor, are not policy studies. they are there to tell us with the most we can get. to a new low with a number you'll do economic step. we know we don't need that. we have done feasibility >> that's not the question i just want i do need >> i'm just answering your quest. we have done feasibility studies we've added a new fee or increased a fee. >> i want to make that point does i don't remember the board
making the big deal about making sure that were doing the feasibility study to make sure were not asking too little of developers. anytime were talking about increasing we ask the developers we go out of our way to study feasibility. it just shows you where the priorities are. but just hear from the public. >> thank you. i want to be clear before it opened up to public comment amuck we are talking about potentially with this particular charter amendment, removing requirement from the charter potentially restoring 55% of ami and below back to what was originally a 15% and adding an additional 10% prop two 10% prop 220% ami and that's my understanding of what were proposing here today. i am concerned about the amendment. i do think we clearly , as expressed from many members of the board have plans to do a feasibility study. my concern about these amendment
is that we don't have enough time to implement that in this particular charter menace. we need to talk about some level of a solution and are not sure of doing those amendment is an actual solution. so we need to figure that out. with that, i want to open it up to public comment and hear from members of the public. since there are no other names on the roster. you can line up to my left and you are allowed the seniors and elderly community to go first. thank you. >> good evening. tom huberty. i don't know, but an idea whether it's 12.5% 25% that if i was a good lawyer i could
take it to the supreme court have it nullified. i think the planning department would have an idea on that. that it could be illegal. it does make us different civets in the charter were not in the charter. what i would like instead is to change and make the city formula that would probably be just as illegal. instead of affordable housing, what percentage of people in the city that can afford, or building housing at 80% of people in the city can't afford. i like to change the idea. all developers, all development, 30% open market, open to the world and their rent control. 10% residence that if you lived in the neighborhood for 30 years, and you're 65 years 10% off free.
15%, 20 year resident again if you're in the local zip code you can be 21 or 55, this 10% is for you. 15%, 10% teacher, police, fire muni employees, city road water sewer workers. i like to increase that to 15%. if you are part of those parts of the city. so we can live in our community. then, there's a little 5% for san francisco residents that are 65 and older who live in have a san francisco zip code. there's 30% for less fortunate people. i like to lower that to 25%. >> next. next speaker, please. >>[foreign language.]
few years. we don't understand what the city needs to spend any more time to study that. this type. as the largest grass roots organization we often hear our members or low income tenants coming to complain to us how hard it is to find affordable housing in the city. >>[foreign language] >> this charter amendment is a
win-winsolution for the low income households and the city as all. we cannot sit here and wait for a solution. we don't need to have developers flooded the city with luxury market rate housing. we need to amend the charter amendment now because middle and low-income households serve just as much as everyone else in the sick. thank you very much >>good evening, the fortunate few. i am a member of inclusionary housing. i've a two-bedroom, two bathroom apartment in this town. it's probably one of nicest you'll ever see. i used to suffer more than six years of homelessness here. i also used to suffer a
substandard sro room that did not have a shower. for almost a dozen years. add to go someplace else to shower. it is an abomination the way this city treats some of its citizenry. you can't be a progressive city and leave people waiting in line at glide for the hope of housing. not even housing. you can leave people waiting in line on cap street. i see those people better than you. because i've been in those lines. i know what it's like. i'm an inclusionary housing now. i'm one of the fortunate few. don't make me one of the fortunate few. i did the burden when i see those people. make me one of the fortunate many. don't change our or amend amend this. leave it as is and let it pass code. it really should be more than 25%. that's for another
day's debate. the tower has an apartment and it that is 40 mile in $500,000. believe me. i welcome the person that's going to pay $59 to live in this town. but the builders can build housing that ends up being $50 million, they can afford to provide for the poor. take a page from henry ford. henry ford was the greatest capitalist this country has ever known. he knew he had to build so that poor folks could afford when he was building. grab the builders by the years and drag him into this town. make them build >> thank you. next speaker, please. >>good evening to my name is paul weber. i'm a resident of north beach. i'm a member of
[inaudible] and a delegate to the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. i am here tonight to support the kim peskin proposer. when we came here tonight a number of us were pretty excited. we thought, finally we were going to get the ball rolling on more inclusionary housing. there's a couple reasons for that. number one, as been pointed out by a member of the supervisor, very little has been done in the last 6-7 years. for that one can say supervisors, shame on you. now you a chance to do something. we come here tonight we start hearing about amendment. we start hearing about studies. that sounds very much like people who don't have an interest in getting anything done. we took what the debate whether will of course it should come out of the charter and it's pretty obvious why some want to keep it in to make
it very inflexible. so i here also for the first time tonight, and this was really disappointing to me, the two projects, which the city had touted as very high percentage of affordable housing, what they neglected to tell any of us and got very high expectations as a result, currently there was heavily subsidized. shame on you. let me finish by just saying the projects you mentioned had to be subsidized because the developers were not pay for, it is possible that they would not pay for because some he was a very good we do shooter and there some reason to be that may have been the case. >>thank you. next speaker, please. my name is jim warshaw. i guess my first real test of
fire on affordable housing the 55 laguna 6 acre site. it was argued six ways to sunday and the way got resolved when we finally got about the affordability of 230%. by including a large senior lgbt components. i think you are going to hear a lot of people talking passionately about why 25% should be good i'm taking a bit of a different track it. instead of that, what i am recommending is, you've done some very intelligent interesting discussion tonight, and this is when most complicated and troubling issues that we are confronted with. the last thing we need is for this to go to competing ballot measures. as we have all
seen, a lot of trees get killed because mailboxes are filled with stuff. a lot of money is spent advertising the defendant. everything is reduced to soundbites. this is so critical that so important that your intelligence, your understanding of the details come i think supervisor peskin set up. it's all about the details. getting the mayor to remove his ballot measure, having yours roots, and come to that sweet spot is really what's called for at this point. even if it means sleepless nights here, please continue with good faith to find that sweet spot. >> thank you. next speaker, please. betook >> dennis antonov. i can't stand here and say today what i believe the optimum figures are in terms of what the percentages ought to be. i do
know if our elected representatives under this measure assumed the responsibility to make decisions about this that the interim requirements in this measure don't have to go into effect maybe not at all and the least for possibly a very short period of time. elected representatives don't act the knees interim measures will be in effect. so, to simply puts the responsibility on you to make a decision about this. your time between now and the election to do with questions of feasibility and so forth. i do know that that 12%, and i think we agree 12% is too low and does not work. it doesn't solve the problem because as the kaiser marston study said, and the nexus study said and concluded, that every bit of market rate housing that's developed also requires and creates a demand and need for more affordable housing. that
may be as much as 30% according to that study. so, 12% can actually be said going backwards that we are actually contributed to the problem we develop too much murky rate housing without a sufficient number of a formal housing to go with it. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervised. we are member of the chinese tenement association. my name is-today represent 156 members of the tenderloin chinese association. our family and friends cannot afford the market rate housing because it's too expensive right now. most have moved out of san francisco. our family spend more than two hours on the road every day. when they live
herein san francisco they would come to visit the seniors because they move out of san francisco right now they cannot have a chance to meet. their families feel guilty. they want to take care of the family and also want to take care of the seniors. they feel so sad. they want to be-i go to a family reunion and right now they feel so sad. today, they come from all 11 supervisors to get support the city charter and double the affordable housing requirements. get more working family to stay in san francisco.
>> also, we have 143 signatures to give to the supervised. >> thank you. >> gentlemen and ladies, greeting. ivan living in-40 years now. a muscle number of the east residential so sitting down in the tenderloin. today's topic is inclusionary housing. i support supervisor kim and the peskin's proposal. however, everyone should be included when it comes to housing. especially those who have no homes. i see the city is trying to build luxury condos and apartments even though some of those units are otto. you say
these homes will be affordable but not affordable to me or the tenderloin or very vast majority of diverse working people. most of these apartments for the rich and mighty moneybags. while the population is overlooked simile with no concern by the city. there should be more projects and play for more of all of defense needs. my question is, does inclusionary housing, affordable housing, really mean affordable? does inclusionary mean people have an opportunity to live on fixed incomes? does it include working people of low incomes even than two jobs they cannot afford what they have now? so here's what i believe. i believe that it should be passed as presented. there's no need to do a study.
this will only be a stall tactic which will keep backing in place making our crisis in san francisco harder. all those people, supervisors you do not understand these things but yet you sit here with all these numbers" all these numbers and then becomes [inaudible]. you doing what you want to do rather than what needs to be done. >> my name is donald boyd. i had a good speech on inclusionary housing but i'm going to change it. because when i was sitting over there, to me it's like we have a lot of beautiful people. a lot of beautiful words. and eagles. i'm homeless so what i need is a board of supervisors that can fight like hell for me. what i want to do is oppose a board of
supervisors boot camp. you all come out there and will go on the streets and sleep in tents just like us under the bridges and sleeping bags and tarps and cardboard and then start working on amending the ballot because when you talk about doing a feasibility study you have to include the homeless. including the homeless in affordable housing are not tents or a warehouse with mats on the floor or churches would match in the basement or school jams. that's not affordable housing. that's just stall tactics. we in the homeless community need help in winning a board of supervisors that can help us out. we need you to fight like hell for us because we've been sleeping in the rain
and getting harassed by the police is horrifying. which of you want to come sleep under the bridge with me? diffusive individual see how it is and you'll fight like hell we want to get more affordable housing. if not ill save here debating all night all day long and kicked the can up the street and start. we need help and we need more affordable housing. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, board of supervisors. i think god and i thank you for your time. my name is frank wynne junior and ambassador for christ as well as a volunteer at hospitality house in the tenderloin area. i stand here today in total agreement with the supervisor kim, the peskin, avalos and
campos by affordable making more afford housing though double the affordable housing that must include in the project. my understanding is that our mayor is pushing a housing study while families, workers, and seniors are being pushed out. now, i'm not in direct opposition to our mayor's studies. in fact, that's ashley smart that our mayor is doing such studies were preparing to do such studies, however, at this time well-however there's a time for studying this time for answers. it doesn't take much of an elaborate study to find the answer that we already have and that is simply more affordable housing. inclusionary charter amendments would double the requirements of a formal housing the developers must include in their project.
double is doable. again, i think god and i thank you all for your time. >> thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> my name is gerald wilson representing hospitality house. they center in the tenderloin. i want to voice our strong support for the kim-peskin charter amendment acknowledge the cosponsors supervisors avalos, mar and campos. also want to add my name to the long list of the san franciscans who have bad luck for our controller. i'll make sure ben knows that. for many committees working class committees of color in san francisco the sky is indeed a following. following. the certain point you have enough information to act, and we would urge you,
strongly, that you have enough information to act. it is a moral imperative to this body to act affirmatively, to address this affordability crisis, which is now equal parts of public policy problem and an erosion of the social compact. poverty problem and to paraphrase the poet, poverty is abysmal dark and deep. your promises to keep. the inverse of this placement is actually entrapment were increasingly working-class communities of color can't afford to stay in the city. nor, can they afford to leave. our view is that in our community increasingly, with disappearing option, vanishing dreams and erosion of trust in our public institutions, those people have
turned away from the political process with good reason. my wife taught me a long time ago that passive aggressiveness is neither overtly passive nor consciously aggressive but is consistently irritated. she also told me that- >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you, surround my name is jim chappell here representing genesis development filed an application for a project that 400 visit zero could result in well over 100 apartments in what is now a gas station-car wash. as some of you may know i've devoted several decades of my professional is to attempt to integrate the conditions to make the production of affordable housing in san francisco possible. for over a decade inclusionary housing requirements have been an important tool in the city's toolbox which genesis development and i believe is
extremely important and fully support. prior and current inclusionary acquirements were adopted with considerable input from the nonprofit housing developers, for-profit housing developers, economist, social service providers, and planners. the proposed charter amendment a well-intentioned is not had the benefit of the rigorous economic analysis and broad-based debate that is necessary to ensure that the legislation maximizes the amount of affordable housing produce. the clear and present danger is that we'll have unintended consequences and lead to a decrease in the total amount of housing produced which means a decrease in an amount of afford housing produce. inclusionary requirements to date include variables for on-site, off-site, and by him. examining possible ways to increase the inclusionary percentage other variables need to be considered land value and location in the city size of development fully residential mixed-use and whether there's enough zoning
or not. i urge the supervisors to eject the charter amendment and current form in order to pass supervisor cohen's amendment will fully committing to examining always to increase affordability in san francisco. please assure? economic analysis and broad-based conversation of stakeholders are undertaken and reach a timely and successful outcome and also please consider grandfathering. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. good afternoon. i am- i've been in the tenderloin for 20 years now. i'm a member of
the filipino-american association. first, i like to think supervisor kim and peskin for introducing this charter amendment to increase inclusionary housing for new developments in san francisco. 60% of san francisco population qualifies for affordable housing . we should be building for the majority of san francisco and develop within developers must pay their fair share to keep san francisco diverse and affordable. so, i urge all supervisors to support this charter amendment introduced by
supervisor kim and supervisor peskin. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, supervise. i name is marina-i lived in the tenderloin for over 20 years now >> please talk up into the microphone so we can hear you. >> good evening, supervise. i name is marlena marr as a resident of the town line for over 20 years now and a member of the tenderloin filipino american community association. i support the opposed charter amendment by supervisor kim and peskin to double the affordable housing requirement for new development in san francisco. i believe e very timely and
important measure to make sure that developers will pay their fair share to make san francisco diverse and affordable. an increase in affordable housing is the right thing to do. though income people and working-class families can stay here in san francisco. i ask all the supervisors to support this charter amendment now. thank you very much >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> before the next speaker speaks all reminded the public that local expression were applause is not appreciated in the chamber what is you can support.. >> singer next speaker, please. >> on jerry kiley. i live in north beach. i am a little bit an easy today because on monday off i note who the new owners in my building are. eight
people were all expecting an eviction so keep your fingers crossed for me. maybe it'll be good news. that is been very long, you're working very hard. as a neighborhood person and i'm affiliated with coalition for san francisco neighbors, neighborhood network, a been active in community events and political, activism for 30 years this is one of the most important issues i've seen in many many decades publicly. first, i would say forget the amendment. pass the charter as is. let the vote take place in
june. inclusionary housing is critical. critical, critical. get back to the voters were it belongs. let's not be the city of halves and has not. mostly have-nots. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, mdm. pres. and supervisors. the sponsors of this legislation are hearts in the right place. however, this is not a question about should or should we not have affordable inclusionary housing. this is about how do we get there and make this work in the building projects themselves. the people of sf deserve legislation and incorporate a feasibility study twice a year given the instability of the real real
estate market in 27. city government needs to have a pulse the monthly blue state inflation caused by the lack of building apartments and condos over the last 40 years. san francisco failed to continue to build apartments and condos during that, downturns in the past could further exasperating gentrification and rent-controlled unit erosion. 7% of the homeless are sf residents. due to the public emergency city government needs to take a look at housing as infrastructure might not as a product of profit. we need to get away from rocket science of inclusionary percentages and write legislation that contains language maximum number of units. in every building projects. we need the largest percentage, per unit, within the maximum amount of affordable units in the building project. we need to make sure that developers have an efficient streamlined account from permit to groundbreaking to tenant and
owner moving projects that pencil in regardless of us national economy. to catch up from the destructive housing policy of the past that bush's tenants out of the apartment and makes more tenants homeless. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is anton aramis. i'm san francisco. i was born in the mission the small apartment on gladys street. i say that because so much of the discussion here tonight its citizens against developers. i am actually both. i own and am ready to develop a wonderful project in the mission they were housing is needed and i can tell you, based on the discussion here tonight that project is on the shelf so,
it's shocking to me that this discussion has focused on the 25% rather than the last 40 years of failed housing policy not enough housing has been created and all my wonderful brothers and sisters here in san francisco deserves a reasonably priced place to live and unfortunately i can't move my project forward because of the instability and uncertainty. by this body. so, i would encourage you to proceed carefully and reject was currently on the table. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is-with the county of committee housing organization representing 24 housing developers and advocates that we were here
back in 2001 and 2002 person with supervisor leno and his board of supervisors treat the city's first inclusionary housing ordinance. we support about measure is been presented by supervisors peskin and kim and of a reasonable resolution presented by supervisor yee. i served on the techno would rise three group in 2006 and 29 when we reviewed feasibility studies to change the inclusionary housing ordinance and i can tell you that all you need to do is change one little assumption to make a feasibility study go from no go to yes-go. the me give you an example. in 2006 this board of supervisors was ready to prove a project and ring con help. spurred in the board of supervisors commissioned a study from segue consulting that determined that project could only afford a five dollar square-foot fee. some of the planners actually look at that study and determined i was a little bit low and so supervisor daly went back to the developer and said, what about
$25 a square foot. you know what, they did it. despite the fact that feasibility study said the sky would fall. let me give you one other example. in 22 articles should housing ordinance went let me give you one other example. in 22 articles should housing ordinance went from 0-12. may developers said the sky would fall. they were still working on y2k. in fact within two years developers increased in san francisco rather than decreased after inclusionary went from zero, to 12% bit double is doable. we need inclusionary. we do not need exclusionary. please support this ballot measure. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> name is deborah kos and with the organizing department. i am also lived in the tenderloin for not .5 years. i would like to let supervisor
kim and peskin no i support your ordinance and like to see this come through because i need to make sure when i get 50 years old which will be a few more years that i have a secure place to live and i can get a place where my niece and nephew can come here without looking at me why there's so many people sleeping on the street in san francisco. why are so many people hanging around on the street? because they don't have that. thank you. tom >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, board members. my name is glenn. i'm a community organizer in the tenderloin neighborhood. i'm here today to urge the supervisors to vote yes on the charter amendments for inclusionary housing. it's easy to fall into habits than to own up responsibility san francisco is on to old habits open up this beautiful city to speculators and corporate greed will not only not to the responsibilities of the locals
that makes it san francisco great. which of political oppression set aside as always housing crisis inclusionary way. so there were not scared of big business and ill be the fight of the people once it's put on about. don't count as a bit housing for all, vote yes on the charter amendment. feasibility report quit playing games. >> thank you. next speaker, please. my name is tiffany mcclelland. i was born and raised in san francisco. i work with the committee team leaders. i'm one of those single moms work two jobs. i've no time to play with my daughter but i still can't know for affordable housing. we share an apartment with 12 other people. that should not be. i work way too hard and i do too much for this community, for the city to be homeless. so, please, support this mouse
because i'm one of those single moms that really need it. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> laura clark pro sf. i think we can all agree that we are all desperate to increase the amount of affordable housing in the city. i just think we disagree about methods. some of the great e-mails are received about this city is san francisco must do everything it can to create affordable housing units. large percentages feel morally satisfying the people living units not percentages. policy must be optimized great the most housing of all types. that's from ian monroe. increasing the number of affordable housing units-that's the number of for the housing units-is critical to long-term sustainability of san francisco. curtis news palm. unfortunately, the proposed charter amendment subsidies
implausible round number of 25% for real analysis and will only further befriends affordable the crisis. instead of passing an election-year gimmick that harms affordability for tenants the board should fund and the development feasibility analysis which we talked about a lot here. you need to add that permanently to this proposal. we need to maximize the number of affordable units created adopt a real solution for a permanent affordable housing unit. supervisors peskin brought up that people are not propose alternatives. actually, i would say that's completely untrue. right now before the housing density bonus program touches make its way to the legislation and will be up here pretty soon proposes to increase the for the housing to 30% by offering some of the tools that are wonderful committee have proposed. increasing density, increasing heights and focusing it around transit rich area. those are the tools we can use to increase
our total number of affordable housing units. for the housing is what we need in the city. we don't need splashy sign percentages. we need to increase the total number with great policy proposals would be density proposal which i hope everyone will be there to support at the land-use committee. at the planning commission. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, supervisors. i miss lorenzo-good, tenderloin residents at community organizer in the tenderloin neighborhood. i founded the tenderloin community helping organization. our organization is supporting supervisor kim and peskin's proposal charter amendment good i believe housing right issues and everyone has has a right to affordable housing. this proposed charter amendment would
not just change for little income and. i have myself have been on the waiting list for a for my family for three years not. it will be my 10th time to join the housing lottery. it's critical that we spread out affordable housing to san francisco to benefit nonprofit workers, janitors, restaurant workers, nurses and teachers, construction workers and small entrepreneurs. so i urge you all supervisors to please support the charter amendment proposed by supervisor kim and supervisors peskin. enough of too much paralysis by analysis. what we need is real action from our board of supervisors. when he charter amendment now. >> thank you. next speaker, please.
>> good evening supervisors my name is charles, and my wife and i are beneficiaries of the housing project program. i like the gentleman spoke earlier we consider ourselves among the fortunate few who want to be part of the fortunate many. as supervisors, this is the kind of thing you were elected to do to fix a problem that got into the lost some years ago. it is your job to do it. i'm glad to see i salute the supervisors about this matter before good i sure hope it doesn't end up falling back on my shoulders and my colleagues to go out in the street and gather petitions and do the job ourselves but we think you should do it sawyer urge all of you this evening to vote unanimously in favor of this legislation for this proposal, without amounts. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening supervisor my name is bettina: along with my
husband asthma beneficiary of the bloke market rate units and like a gentleman who spoke earlier, we don't want to be among the fortunate few. the people that live in the development where we live, their families, some of them are young families with young children and some of them had elderly family members living there. the kind of workers that are there, there are three taxi drivers. as a bust harbor there's a us postal worker. there are a few teachers. there's a hotel worker. that's just a few i know. so, i, along with many other people, will party spoken tonight, i ask you all to support and vote yes on this charter amendment as presented by supervisors kim and peskin. >> thank you. next speaker,
please. >> good evening, supervise my name is ken drake on the executive board of educators of san francisco. we represent approximately 6300 people who keep the schools of san francisco running day and day out. so, as i'm waiting in line ironically just 10 min. ago, a good friend of mine named charles hibbard who is voted best teacher at two different high schools in san francisco both old high school and galileo high school. he gives them a message from st. paul and a soda. why is that? wise the city gem was the feasibility for the loss of resources and soul of the city in which one of our great teachers had to leave this town is he could not find a place to afford to live? we support
this charter amendment 25% if anything is too little. there's hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars being made in that market. when not fooling around here were advocating for the working families of san francisco. we are advocating for ourselves, the classroom teachers, the paraprofessionals, the security aid, the library eight, the counselors, we simply want to stay and serve the community of san francisco this charter amendment is going to help. it's time to act. let's get it done. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> name is jordan davis. i'm a concerned housing and homeless rights advocate in the 10 own. i'm speaking today improved to double the inclusion closure requirement as was like most poorly with the soon. the this
is not enough and we one percent affordable housing for 0-80% ami. let's keep it simple. we don't want any more luxury house good he don't need any more luxury house. we can't wait for anymore affordable housing. the techie children corporate lawyers over overpaid sf police officers [inaudible]. we've housing for service workers can we really need housing for homeless disabled individuals coming out. because these are not enough and not suitable for families. people disabilities and transgender people such as myself who believe it or not this is personal for me. as a formerly homeless disabled individual. you may hear from the developers that double is not doable and though go into
boilerplate. sometimes privilege why people in expensive suits can lie. in that same game must. verse the displacement of black people, etc. and keep san francisco diverse and a conclusion while i applaud supervisor kim and peskin and avalos and campos for this proposal at state the opportunity to do much better when we get through this hurdle. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. writing ms. kathy-among the executive board of senior and distal reaction senior and distal reaction is pretty excited about this inclusionary housing being removed from the charter. it's also excited about double is doable. but previous speakers,
double willie is not sufficient. we think it makes great sense to move people hoosier numbers out of the chopper and into the hands of elected people such as yourself. we need you to make these decisions and we will be behind you if you make good decisions. the mayor's office on housing, in its last housing element airport between 2005 and 2015, said that 22,000 residential units have been constructed in the 10 year permit get out of this number only 6294 units were in the affordable category. this is really in on acceptable lopsided outcome. for those who say just bills, just build
luxury housing and will all trickle down. you know, there is the downside libertarian thinking is cooking into san francisco. a seed in my neighborhood with some of the young people. some of them are wonderful but if you just build luxury housing if you build housing it does matter what kind of housing is going to trickle down. well, my friends that would've happened given that we do have a surplus of luxury housing and not any sufficient numbers for affordable. so, with the trickle down theory to my think that it should have been into the sunset with ronald reagan. this is out of date. it doesn't work and we need hands-on and stiff regulation of housing in the city especially for poor lowly moderate income people. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> michael terry of san francisco building trades
council. we find a great deal to agree with in supervisor kim and be peskin's operas. 12% does need to come out of the chart. we do need to maximize inclusionary housing. we need to give the board the requirement up or down as conditions merit. that said, i'll sure the teachers we have done her homework and we have looked at numbers that say 20% as mr. rich is point out is not broadly unachievable. wish we had seen numbers that say 25% broadly unachievable. we've not seen them. we would love to see them. we appreciate supervisor yee's approach in asking for feasibility studies and grandfathering could we however do prefer the stronger requirements that supervisor cohen has proposed. with the ability to adjust relative to the board's criticism of a feasibility study that mr. avalos, supervisor avalos said
are appropriate. we would ask that that the board adopt those amendment. i want to point out that many of us live in san francisco. you shouldn't do we want to same san francisco. my two cents of both artist. one is musician and one of digital art. and how tough it is for them to stay here. my wife is a teacher source early supervise with the plight of teachers. keep these make your best effort to make this work because we need a functional ordinance and not one that reduces the amount of inclusionary housing. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. matt weaver with the bay area council. my work on shuttles actual date of his housing policy at the counter. i want to bring your attention to airport that published two weeks ago the state legislative analyst office. i regarded office that
is great research. this report is very relevant to the conversation at hand. it lifted a lot of census tracts in the bay area that has high level of displacement and also very strong conclusions. conclusion eight ordinance have little discernible affect on the provision of affordable units. it compared census tracks side-by-side committees that have inclusionary ordinance those that do not and those that do not have produced the exact same amount of affordable units. they've got more troubling conclusion that the higher the rate of inclusionary ordinance the more depressing effect you have on the production of all units of housing and even affordable units as well. so the concern that mr. rich exposed early about unintended consequences are real and genuine in the
date appears that appeared up every to share this with you but i do have a clean copy. a be happy to e-mail this report to your staff to market i hope when you make your decision you make it with the benefits of these facts. they are the most recent fax and data produced perhaps the most knowledgeable and well respected analyst in the state of california. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm marla knight cochairman of north beach tenants committee and we support the proposal of supervisor kim and peskin to raise the percentage to 25% in the charter amenities. the flipside of having more and more percolate housing and we've seen this in north beach, as rents accelerate, which they have in north beach, then the
commercial rent also accelerate and we see the small business is shutting down. so what's left is the people are left can stay in the living place often do not businesses where they can do business because it's all high end stuff. i also another comment. when developers say they can't do it without having luxury, i've never seen the raw data. i've seen some, but does this just means developers who are profit developers? and perhaps we should have nonprofits building vast did have another comment. there were talks about building units. so expensive is it possible to build no-frills units? i notice in the chronicle three weeks or an architect from italy when this big prize because he developed public housing and it's kind of like bare-bones public housing.
as your fortunes rise you can add things. so i think this is something to consider. anyway, i urge the board to support supervisor kim and peskin's proposal. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> first of all, i like to thank supervisor aron peskin for his eloquence and passion and also supervisor avalos, kim, and campos. my name is marty says on and i am here because my story is very personal, and while you people are throwing around facts and figures and numbers, people are out there in san francisco six, in pain and dying. i am a senior. i'm 73 years old this year. i live in san francisco over 50 years. longer than some of your ages.
i've lived all over in every district and this is now the 10th year that i've had to endure this terrific housing crisis could 10 years. first i was convicted in 2006 from my home, my rent-controlled home of 21 years. i was so distraught i developed cancer in the middle of this move and i almost given up on finding anything affordable after year of looking. i'm a local way. i've written for some of the major magazines and newspapers here. that small businesses in this town. i currently now, because my age i'm on social security of $618 a month. i would like to know which one of you people here could live on that anywhere. not even in detroit. i have 10 pages worth. how much longer can i do? i've
taken housemates to make the rent because now i am being-i'm getting evicted by the market rate increase. by landlord has raised the rent last two years $1350 per month in the last two years. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> we appreciate your comments and understand where you are coming from. next speaker, please. >> ma'am, i'm sorry. ma'am. i'm sorry. next speaker, please. >> my name is patrick kennedy,
developer of rental housing. been working for 25 years here in san francisco the last three years. i'm passing out a sheet that shows how much construction prices gone up in the last six months in san francisco. lowrise construction is going up 11%. this work arrival from culpability. missed your attention because i like you to remember that we cannot build new housing and adopted new requirements in a vacuum. i think we need to exactly what's going on in the community. an arbitrary requirement that doubles the set-aside requirement without taking into effect, without taking into consideration the massive increase in construction prices here in san francisco will actually reduce the amount of housing that is
produced. berkeley has a set-aside requirement of 10% and is produced roughly triple the amount of moderate and low income housing in san francisco. as a per capita production of its population. i would also like to remind you that if this legislation passes without some kind of equitable grandfathering provision, and the consideration for feasibility is quite likely the ordinance will indeed be challenged and result in a legal disqualification of the cities set-aside requirement altogether because legislation
passed in 1999. correctly, on the legality of the set-aside requirement here in san francisco. finally, i like to encourage you to adopt the affordable onus or affordable housing bonus program is producing more housing in the city. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, supervise. tim: we have three of the members of the san francisco action coalition. said many times. we support the maximum amount of affordable housing being built but i think one of the issues that has not been discussed here is that in order to do that we have to build a lot of housing. the concern i have with this well-intentioned charter amendment is that the number, it doesn't seem to be borne out by any analysis. any formal analysis. this is a problem because if by moving it forward overall housing production is reduced, the city's affordability worsens
and its displacement in crease. the city was. it's incredibly important to get this number right. it's not a trivial matter. i don't like making apocalyptic statements. no one can foretell the future, but the 25% is more or less a one-size-fits-all number that treats all housing alike which is not in the city. when of the chief fears we have is that by saying because someone can pay 25% we should put it in, the fear is this warhammer production of smaller scale or cost construction outside the urban core. we don't have a prayer of ever getting a handle on the affordability crisis up for doing it. i think in some folks mind there's this project is prototype project that's super wealthy and because that all projects are they the same. your discussion about 5m. this is not a one-size-fits-all. i'm
disappointed there wasn't a deal able to be made on economic feasibility and grandfathering because i think we shouldn't kid ourselves that things can't get worse. we can make things worse. the housing affordability crisis is largely of our own making 30 years ago. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is tony rodriguez. her present local 42. i'm also a native and resident of san francisco. i would like like i said at the other meeting, my parents come here from foreign country. they're able to buy a house and raise four. i was able to follow the same thing. i met my wife was able to buy a house and raise for girls. unfortunately, just like a lot of people here sure people here, our kids are not following having the same dream
we have. at two daughters that were nurses. one of them could not afford to stay in the cities of it but house in oakland. the other moved in to help her pay the rents. my other two daughters one is a teacher. one is a teachers aide. both going to school both living at home. they can think about buying a house let alone paying the rent to move out. so i do work with-which i hope homeless people all the time. all the stuff we are tonight is true. we have a crisis. for all different groups. but you supervisors are a safety net when it comes to making laws that are kids, grandkids are going to have to live with. i've never seen something like this go before the board of supervisors and you voted in without doing the feasibility study. i brought a lot of stuff on the opposite nothing
supervisors kim says what would make it work. so, i just don't understand how you could vote something into law cannot do a study could and if it does get voted into law i would suggest you do have something that goes in the chart of the basically says, you feasibility studies to make it go up or down. >> thank you. next speaker, please. betook >> minus kelly johnson. >> my name is kelly johnson. i am telling you that this is not going to go [inaudible]. the 25%
[inaudible]. pushed around by a devil here. i am telling you this is going to change. [inaudible]. we will have some shelter. we are going to build houses. when not going to be playing games with you. [inaudible] time to kill all the people in the world by taking our food away. i am not going to have it. this has been
discrimination. because of somebody can take the world and take everybody else with it. [inaudible]. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is jeffrey-local san francisco residential development firm. we recognize the critical importance building more housing specially affordable housing to keep her city diverse and combative and we've included that always and
he's valid project that was having a higher 24% requirement may sound a solution to this problem is that may suppress the production of housing we intend to stimulate. it is therefore critical we conduct a proper economic feasibility study. our firms focuses on smaller 50-100 unit input projects which should not have the ability to sort a to x increase in requirements. the majority of our current projects would be financially infeasible and not be moving forward as they are today. it's also critical that we are responsible grandfathering provisions well projects girardi filed applications are made significant financial investment to move forward on the original rules that relied upon when applications were submitted. to not do so would open the city to lawsuits and show investment in the city more broadly it has investors wouldn't void environment were rules are perceived to change quickly and unpredictably.
thank you for your time and hope we can reach move forward cautiously and thoughtfully and carefully study the stability maximum out of housing at all levels. betook thank you. next speaker, please. >> >> i'm the chairman of the admiralty fun. i remain deeply concerned that if we increase the affordable acquirement to 25% will actually have a decrease in the number of affordable units being produced in san francisco. i vastly summative lots of-when i did the pro forma i was really trying to find out-i asked the four largest contractors the cost to build a 16 story high-rise i sent the pro forma to the four largest afford housing providers in san francisco. 24 largest developers i did my very best to come up with an economic analysis and i talked with for major lenders. right now, it is
exceedingly difficult to build housing with 25%. i don't think it can be done. we can argue but the numbers but the best exhibit obscene for the somebody is 72 s. venice and their budget is $900,000 to build 100% affordable housing units in san francisco. that's $900,000. so just be really careful. i presume that gets past that we work with a trailing ordinance there really allows grandfathering and the looks of the economics with 25%. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, supervise. my name is brian spears. on the smaller local native san franciscan builder did i grope in the trades. i typically build smaller projects, former gas stations were buildings.
the gloucester economic value. my concern is that 25% is one-size-fits-all. to me, as a builder enough to demonstrate use make some profit and go out and get alone. at 25% with no increase in height or bulk than the existing zoning humid place that monies me subsidize his remaining 75% of that building. that means, market rate housing, the very least needs to remain where it is or go up when you can get on. it's as simple as that for me. i can't make it to them until i can get seven more stories and i know there's a lot of other builders similar situation. what concerns needs is one-size-fits-all. i do applaud the intentions of more formal housing. i've always been on set. i just recently built 23 affordable units at the corner of market and franklin so i've
been there. i've done a bit i was proud to do that but i'm very concerned that moving forward of a 25% one size fits of you i think the goal cost the city is a high level of affordable housing became begun the same way at every site would be my main concern. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is ivan, resident and committee organizers for the tenderloin neighborhood. i'm just here to voice my support for supervisors kim and peskin's inclusionary housing amendment. i do believe this is a good step in addressing our housing crisis. this is not the only step. we have a lot of people that need housing. i do believe we can be the san francisco by the city that actually solve this problem because all other urban errors are going to the same issue as we are. why can't we be the first window housing for
everybody? was in the homeless, middle-class, and folks making lots of money. i think this is a good step but i hope we continue finding more solutions in terms of having real inclusionary housing which includes everybody in san francisco. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is juan carlos. local developer could., longtime san franciscan resident. i wanted to refer to something that one of the previous speaker said which is that you have a moral imperative to act in i would agree but i would add if a moral imperative to act cautiously and carefully when making a very big change to the rules that are in place for the city is all. you heard from many speakers and people care
passionate about housing in this. i would include myself that were compassionate passionate about green market rate housing and affordable husband you can't double the performance for about many projects in the pipeline and may projects coming down the pipeline in later years. we are very afraid of for our cities that you're taking very drastic step that if not carefully considered going to find ourselves here are 5-10 years down the road with a worse problem with a worse crisis where more people will not have access to affordable housing boxes to any kind of housing. so, i urge you to carefully consider the key provisions being discussed to amend the charter amendment or at least discuss trailing ordinance is that can put in place adequate grandfathering for existing projects and feasibility. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is daniel my renter
in there. basically on for removing the percentage of bmr from the charter and doing a feasibility study. would sound like everyone on the board was sort of on that page. i think we need to stop focusing on those maximizing percentage of affordable housing. in maximizing we do need to focus on the maximizing the amount of it which is subtly different but not exactly the same thing. prince's nephew of 40 in a building and make 50% of it then you wind up with six inclusionary units. view 100 unit building need to 12% you wind up with a 12 inclusionary units was actually twice the number helps bring up the price at the type of market pulse. i don't have a specific percentage want to recommend but i think we need to draw both about propositions and do a study, feasibility study to figure out what we can do to maximize the wrong number of
inclusionary units we can build in the city. some people also mentioned alternatives for way too fund the turn of husband: product three. while we taxing insane runs? why don't we tax that end-users pay for inclusionary housing. people that get capital gains from houses they bought a long time ago especially landlords to make a killing after they sell the building. let's tax that. last but not least maybe we could increase the property tax rate on houses are such that more than $1 million. i knows were not short on $1 million houses. job the percentage on the charter and let's do a feasibility study and maximize the number of inclusionary units. >> thank you. next speaker, please.
>> good evening. my name is moses see in this of the simple and quick. we need more affordable housing now. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i like to thank supervisors kim for this proposal and peskin my name is jesse john spent on long-term resident of the tenderloin. a maypole. i'm the founder of tenderloin-the people's congress. more poorly on one of the growing number of people eager to take back our lives. please do this on about and we will win. the stronger proposal just give us an opportunity to do so. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> this inclusionary charter amendment is a tool in the fight for affordable housing. it's not the cure but it's a
tool in the fight. it doesn't keep in mind the numbers that we keep talking about can keep this from seeing the human side of our situation. we are talking about numbers but were also talked about people. but keep that in mind. the many seniors that are priced out of the city. felix the senior cost-of-living index a senior who runs a one-bedroom apartment needs $1250 to pay the rent by the senior investment 2011. those numbers were off the charts. they're much high. many seniors have two choose between medicine and food. in the low-end of a my 50%, 67% is an attainable to many seem. we need to redefine what affordable is according to the reality of what were seen on the ground. that's not studied this problem any further. were out of balance in our housing goes. that is clear. was doubled inclusionary
requirements. double is doable. i will repeat again, double is doable. 25% is modest. we need much more. let's hold accountable to the developers. that's what this is about. withhold developers accountable. i appreciate the energy and passion that i've seen on the board about this issue. the back-and-forth, i mean the heat of it almost is the most like tarzan versus jane. i do appreciate it and that's make the right decision. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my development background in san francisco includes one of development in [inaudible]. i agree the city's affordable housing policy is very important proof in terms of economic and human impact. maybe san francisco is a leader in this regard. the unjust
public housing to inclusionary housing and public-private partnerships. however, once each of these tools reaches a saturation point we need to try other approaches. as a fix mandate schools can lead to negative unintended consequence. recent efforts is baited the roundtable on income inequality. to the palace and could economic from stanford and uc berkeley they shared a number of key insights which is in or it could raise the cost of living driving out middle-class residents creating a bilevel income distribution and decreasing affordable housing production. >> please speak directly into the microphone >> the board would [inaudible] given impressive mechanized prior to voting i encourage the board to do an in-depth study.
first, as to the separate categories of housing tabs. sizing and location should be more level for medium-size project than traditional labor district the same or different than those for downtown high-rise. large-scale office component gets second semester the production curve, this is become infeasible jeopardizing the production goes. as [inaudible]. i will point to consider adopting a broad-based tax to to use as well as aligning interests of the community at large to sport these public benefits. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i currently with an outer richmond. i like to plot the supervisors for the heart of this legislation bumper faxed and honestly confused about why we put it. i think the 25% is very spicy number in this
election year but i do not think it's been studied well enough to actually understand the fact that it's going to have an rc. we look at increasing the number of affordable units and this could harm our angle created more affordable housing in the suit. early doing purge the board to look at an economic feasibility study. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is sonia-speaking in favor of supervisor cohen's amendment because i really do think that getting the number wrong could result in much fewer affordable housing units being built. user housing units overall. i like this club because i feel like everyone in this card is asking for more in the amendment i like to see is an amendment that provides the up zoning. and the density increases that many people are saying would allow us to get to 25%. i don't really understand why it's so hard to just build
more. the book resort is a good example. being mentioned earlier. huge site with a lot of potential but even though-there's no displacement. it's a parking lot. but despite that, the muscle through a redundant community advisory committee which makes the process take longer. so, it's going to be as 90s three or 30 affordable units there. we are going to wait another romance maybe who knows, your foray. for it. when the affordable housing bonus program comes vote in favor of that austrian disco wind up being as default for up zoning everywhere because if we have 25% and everyone else take advantage of the state density program.
i'm looking forward to seeing what happens with that. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm an architect with many projects in affordable housing in the suit. i'm really concerned that 25% is arbitrary. if it turns out double is not doable and projects are canceled 25% of no project equals no affordable housing. i think i would've chilling effect on construction and the people that support that. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm a vice president at plant construction. we've been in san francisco for 70 years we build a lot of things but we build housing a lot. i work for developers could have done projects very large, 30 story.
the economics monk lines of projects are very different. i kind of think you do need to look at things in different ways for different projects and see what works. i was new there was a housing problem in san francisco. i think was very highly of it to myself tonight as well. there's no doubt there's a problem and something needs to be done. we just want to do it in a way that doesn't make it so that you have 25% of nothing. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is john want. i've been a resident of san francisco for over 62 years. i am here to, in fact, speak on my perspective the benefits of market rate housing. it's a
discussion about her to get some way put my perspective on where this comes from. in the 70s as with gordon chan at international hotel resisting when my hair was longer. that john won't you still need. but i also am the son of immigrants from parents who'd immigrated to san francisco the time when you couldn't leave poor child. never learned to speak english though they were here for well over 70-80 years. but there was was their ownership of market rate housing and the ability of increase in value that allowed my sisters and me to attend college, to allow them, even though their social security is very modest to survive in a very happy life until they passed into their 90s. so, my
comment is i am fully in support of san francisco and san franciscans being a broad spectrum of individuals of different economic backgrounds, social backgrounds, but the reality is in this discussion it seems to be demonizing the opportunity that san franciscans should have two build a life for themselves and for their children and grandchildren >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> could even get minimus team santa. i live in an sro in the tenderloin. i'm a member of pl votes and the people's congress. i just have to tell the supervisors number one, thank you for letting me speak this evening. but you must be doing something right. before you even take a boat looks even got two people threatening a lawsuit if you don't vote the way they want. in the presidential election this year,
several candidates are running on exclusion. exclusion is not what our country is about. now, is your opportunity to vote for inclusion. treating people as less than does not make a hero. a hero hopes his fellow man, especially that fellow man that may be in need. this is your time to be that hero. thank you for your time. please be the hero transport the inclusionary measure. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is lou vasquez., native san franciscan, resident attendance. i'm a developer. we have about 300+ units of
affordable housing in our pipeline comic. it's good to build affordable housing we need to build affordable housing. but where justin, that's four years in the making. if we rush to this kind of legislation is pretty binary. you can get it right or you get it wrong. if you get it wrong as very chilling affect on the market. this a very chilling effect on the production of affordable and market rate housing. we need to get it right. take the time to do the analysis. hansen has 40 years to get here. if you change it to 25% today or 3-4 years out from delivering another affordable unit. there was currently in the pipeline. there's no rush here. get it right. do it right. produce
that housing how people move into it and help alleviate the problem. don't make it worse. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> yes, let's get the number out of the charter and put it in the hands of the legislators that we have elected. instead of a document. supervisor kim said 60% of our current san francisco residents qualify for affordable housing. right now. last i heard housing was a human rights. feasibility studies can be spun in a lot of different ways. nobody knows the future. let's consider that our real estate investment market is international. san francisco is cheaper than any comparable or most any comparable cities around the world clearly places like
london. we need to control our real estate and make it serve us not be controlled by market forces that are about money. developers are the ones who fail to build. people like me stood here and beg for housing for years and years. the developers want to build office buildings. so, now here we are. this proposal can effectively produce much more affordable housing than the contorted so-called density bonus housing. if market rate reduction slows soak it with party made the goal for market rate housing. so it can probably think of some other creative ways to do this like maybe have a minimum size-we certainly see how people will adjust to the number of units but let's get the number. let's get the number out of the charter and into your hands. >> thank you. next speaker,
please. >> peter cohen. i have copies of a letter here for you all. buford from a lot of folks. we have therefore the housing crisis. we all know it. there's reports of their studies is media news piece. this all kinds of proclamations. what we need are solutions. i would argue what you have in front of you is one solution not the only solution. get inclusionary housing one way to create affordable housing. the proposition a bond was asleep. the housing trust fund in 2012 was a solution but i would argue you start looking at that short-term rental paxman. there's lots of solutions. the proposal before you is very simple. take inclusionary backout of the charter and into the hands of the board would should not belong to last for
years and ensure there's a process to do a full inclusionary update and in the meantime have some interim goals and then going forward conclusion i can be updated as often as we need to. good supervisor yee resolution of. i thought it was beautiful. some measure of grandfather and some feasibility analyses in the regular updating in a nexus site. it's all there. the only difference whether it's baked into a ballot measure which puts us right into ballot box planning or whether we see that resolution the statement of intent and go to businesses. that's what were committed to working with on this board, all of you and other stakeholders in the commit. developers side and otherwise. i gave you a copy of the letter. there is also beset the one i think mentioned shane economic development agency. etc. and many many to meet readers.
please, move this forward as it is with no amendment. let's get it to the voters >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> chris do want to meet pulsing director. pay for the opportunity to weigh in on proposed changes to san francisco's inclusionary housing. as you know spurs big sport of affordable housing involved in inclusionary housing since it was instituted in san francisco. we believe it's important tool, one of many, help grow san francisco for the housing supply you with many others in this room is room to raise the bar. however, financial feasibility is key. too low a requirement not ask enough and too high developers wonder producing less housing volatiles that we'd like. what make sure the requirement hits that sweet spot with some projects are viable rightly increased requirement of affordable housing want to make sure housing projects can
compete with parking lots and other low intensity commercial pieces for land. housing is not the only thing that once when i want to make sure it's competitive. based on what we seen we do not think 20% is workable as a baseline. we urge you to stylish process including a inclusionary carmen on financial feasibility and we also urge you to establish a grandfathering date project sarti negotiated land deals in already in the pipeline. without grandfathering only to lose would lay thousands of units in the pipeline would also cause the loss of thousands full-time jobs the short and long-term. some don't believe in the role that market rate has to play in the housing affordability crisis. but as the legislative analyst office points out, that made it so great though never be able to subsidize housing for the entire population. if it is 65% amount of money would cost is
astronomical. most of us will not win affordable housing lottery and we need to figure out to fix the market to address those needs. going overall supply is when the other pointed out will make a difference >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is legion. gross san francisco small development firm in the suit. and also residentcan but while we recognize the city does have a great need for affordable housing the proposed amendment is not the solution. we urge you to establish a proper process for change in inclusionary housing requirements get the 25% [inaudible] is just not a sound approach to policymaking. an economic feasible essay will
allow you to truly understand what level inclusionary housing is appropriate without exacerbating current housing shortage in increasing our cost of living for san francisco residence. the need for such an academic study is a critical it cannot be ignored. it needs to be adopted now. second, we urge you to adopt a grandfathering clause for the projects that's already in the pipeline that translates to about 8000 units. significant number when you compare to a 20 year historical average. the loss of 8000 pipeline units simply means higher rental rates, higher housing husband higher cost of living for the san francisco residence. if you intend to increase inclusionary housing supply alleviate overall holocaust of living incorporate grand father closet now into the proposal. lastly i want to
address the issue here is not whether not we need more affordable units. we all agree we do. if you go to address this issue that's what you gather to come up with some solution but sustainable as well as that file for all the communities to include affordable housing income units and i support the goals and development for san francisco in a sustainable way. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> minimum income level of people the world over is about $20 a day. the reason people in america make more goes collectively subsidized particular income and well-being. course we can subsidize every. we do it every single day. while subsidizing ourselves. i lived in a house i first moved to europe and of course there was no housing problem for you is. it was endless types of land and this
housing in the sunset had not been built yet. the reason we have a problem now is because that ship has sailed. we have to start in a thoughtful way to protect allowing the things that we have given to each other to allow it to go to everyone. lower income people also. i lived in a house. he was in the ward in. if victoria. his bills by large wealthy family and of course it was inclusionary housing. the entire bottom of the house rooms for the staff. in terms of units it was a third percent conclusion. 800% and that was in 1915. terms of square feet it was 40% inclusionary. 25% is not enough and that's just a start. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is wendy i want to speak about development
affordability. whether they can afford it or not, people in the city of san francisco are now getting increasingly unaffordable rent. i also want to add the numbers and figures that have not been spoken about. extremely low income is defined that 30% of area median income. that is up to $21,400 a year. that equals $1800 a month approximately. very low income is from 31-50%. that starts approximately from
$22,000-35,007 on her dollars. low income some 51%-80%, is $36,000 to approximately $57,000. moderate income is filled within the affordable housing definition. of up to 120%. that is that is between 50,080 6000. new income is $86,000 to start with. my question is, is middle income considered affordable now? for someone who's living on social security extremely low income
>> thank you. thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> are there any other members of the public which provide public comment at this time seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> colleagues, supervisors cohen betook >> i want to thank all those folks are came out for public comment and sat through this hearing. i appreciate your remarks and i think the word remarks that are very common themes and this is very important and this is a crisis and it deserves 110% attention. the gentleman that offers opportunity to sleep under the bridge, i'll think about it. i don't see a mania but i deftly felt his compassion and urgent.
with that said, they to withdraw my previous amendment and have circulated a new set of amendment to substitute him. them. it includes the planning departments desire for study by december 31, 2016. i think that's it. >> yes, i'm sorry. i'm reading the amendment i just got like 2 seconds. beat it your professional as a mic and that's what we do. >> yes. supervisor peskin >> through the president to supervisors cohen, can you read
right what the changes are in the new item you've introduce? >> supervisors cohen >> yes, supervisor. the controller will present the proposed ordinance. what including the planning comment to meet in the study. complete the study to meet in the study. complete the study by december 31, 2016. the controller will come back with the proposed ordinance to the board of supervisors. the board shall hold a public hearing to adopt, rid reject and/or adopt with amendment for the ordinance. the controller's office-maybe you could discuss the amendment further if supervisor peskin he delivered more we pick >> oscar the city attorney after my colleague is done with her request.
>> i want to ask it for a point of clarity. why is it necessary to include this in the charter amendment were proposing and not do it separately as its own ordinance? >> alder for my answer to >> i will defer answer to been excuse me, nikki we can >> nicole elliott for mayor bede's office. in response to question the goal of having this in the charter amendment is to it obtain certain tea that it will be done. in the future, now and in the future looking for. >> supervisor peskin >> then, perhaps to ms. wheaton, because it appears-ms. elliott, my apologies-it appears you're attempting to speak for these sponsors. maybe
you can respond to why the first amendment's was defective to because that's what it was. and wife through the supervisory put in a second and white believe it's not legally defective? because it gets to the essence of-this charter amendment was introduced on december 15, 2015. on july-on january 19 the mayor introduced his fiscal feasibility bout initiative. turned it in at 424 in afternoon prior to our second trend the second initiative. what has happened, is that the amendment to the charter amendment that having district and supervisor kerry is actually a violation of the charter. was never reviewed by
vehicle cancel and cannot be defined. that's actually what's going on you. >> thank you supervisor peskin. supervisor campos >> just a quick question. has this amendment been reviewed by the city attorney and approved by the city attorney to pick? >> yes, the amendment has been reviewed by a office. we can sign the charter amendment approving it. >> just for clarity, what is different between the previous amendment in this current amendment why the current amendment is acceptable and the other isn't? >> there are few differences.
some that don't rise to reels legal cigarettes but among others the new version passes both the controller and planning apartment with preparing studies that previous version. the new version requires the controller along with the reports by december and everything years thereafter submit a proposed ordinance to the board. the new version would require the board to consider that ordinance am a hold a hearing, it will be within the discretion of the board to adopt, reject or adopt some other version with amendment did the original proposal acquired the controller to prepare reports and then required to the board to adopt an ordinance effectively moment in the recommendation about reports. essentially, that version dictated to the board of the content of an ordinance that would adopt in the future where is this version just gives the
board a report and recommendation in the board can act on its own discretion. >> thank you for the card. supervisor peskin >> i rise to respectfully urge you colleagues to vote down the amendments to the charter amendment. it is my hope that between now and 2 pm on tuesday, march 1 that there'll be a meeting of the minds that the two ordinance will be dropped. that cooler heads will prevail. that will all agree to supervisor yee. >> on-site debate is happening on the has up inside. second by supervisor tang okay. supervisor peskin >> is my profound hope by 2 pm on march 1 cooler heads will prevail. the two versions of the ordinance will be withdrawn
. that this charter amendment will move forward to the ballot , wherein the 12% be taken out and that we will have at least at a high level conceptual agreement between the executive branch and the makers of this charter amendment and hopefully broad-based buy-in on issues like grandfather in, use it or lose it, and what have you moving forward which, i for one would like to adopt prior to the passage on the june 7 ballot of this charter amendment , but respectfully urge you colleagues, let's get the job done. with our people mistake of 2012. let's vote amendment to the charter amendment down >> thank you. seeing no other names on the roster, and i am going to need a two-minute recess in order to review this